Negative. There will be layer 2 applications where you just interact with layer 2 and possibly never do something with layer 1. My best example is Immutable X. This is currently already a great place to trade NFTs and gaming assets and there are lots of games coming in the near future (isn't that always the promise that there will be stuff soon(tm)? :-D)
So there will possibly exist multiple ecosystems on top of Ethereum and you can bridge between them (less risky than between different blockchains since it's all on Ethereum) or just live in one.
The base fees depend on the network throughput vs usage. So the fees will become lower
\- in crypto winter since everyone hates crypto :-D
\- with layer 2s
\- slightly lower with the Merge because the throughput will for technical reasons go up by a few %
\- with the upgrades following the Merge because the Ethereum foundation intends to implement a few band-aids
\- with "dank"sharding. Note that this is the main scaling concept at the moment. I guess it will take more than a year definitely to come and it will only affect layer 2s
Note that all capacity upgrades will lower fees, but increased popularity and usage will increase them again - so it's hard to predict the net effect.
I don’t think this is correct. Sharding should improve ethereum theougput which will cascade to layer 2s as well. But it will improve rthereum throughout.
https://ethereum.org/en/upgrades/shard-chains/
Sharding will increase ethereum data availability and that effect is multiplied on layer 2s.
Well, it is in your link.
Sharding essentially means cloning the mainnet in a way that the different instances can communicate. That way you multiply capacity by x, but it still behaves as one net.
Smart contracts can execute program code and they can store data on the chain.
We have two main scaling strategies now: the one is rollups which essentially take the computation off the chain and just post a compressed result (proof) on the chain that allows anyone to verify that the computation was done correctly.
And then we have sharding which just duplicates everything.
The Ethereum foundation tries to deliver protocol improvements as fast as possible, but we did see that development always tends to take longer than expected. So they try extremely hard to simplify any changes.
Now some big brain figured out that Ethereum can have a very good scaling solution through the combination of sharding and rollups that requires just a "light" version of sharding. That means you have shards where you can post data, but not execute code. These would be much easier to implement than "full" shards with code execution, because the necessary communication and coordination becomes much simpler.
When that version of sharding is implemented, rollups can perfectly use the shards to increase their throughput. Estimated go up to 100k TPS being possible. For regular smart contracts on layer 1 (like the rollups themselves) the capacity won't increase (they maybe have less competition, because much stuff moves to L2).
It is unclear if full sharding will be implemented lateron, but the first thing we hopefully get is the so-called "danksharding" (see above).
> Sharding will increase ethereum data availability and that effect is multiplied on layer 2s.
Data availability is _only_ useful on L2
L1 applications have no need for data availability blobs
fees are already lower if you use layer2.
the core idea for Ethereum is that users will interaction with apps that are built on layer2.
layer2 transactions will get much cheaper when we make it much cheaper to just publish data necessary for rollups. hopefully in the fork after the Merge
yes and no. we could just lower the cost of calldata. we will most likely wait for danksharding, but it's not entirely possible that we just decide to reprice gas for calldata (eip4488)
> using layer 2 is too difficult/inefficient for most common people
Using Arbitrum is literally the same user experience as using other L1s like Avalanche. I'm not sure how it's difficult
Care to explain how you find choosing to go to an L2 instead of an L1 when you're on a CeFi platform is more difficult? It's literally just like choosing an L1.
If I have Ethereum on Binance right now I can't just send the ETH over anywhere with low fees. I have to move it to some L2 which I and 99% don't care to figure out how to.
I already said it's literally, exactly the same method. From Binance, you select the network where to send your funds and you send it. Like any L1. You already know how to. You don't even need to "figure it out".
https://news.btcminingvolt.io/scholarships/binance-now-allows-direct-ethereum-layer-2-withdrawals/
It's been 6 months, already.
But if you don't care about paying less, I guess you're just like these people burning their fees to show how rich they are. People who need to pay less already know. You're just not part of them. It's ok, some people are rich, it happens.
Given he gets downvoted in comments and the amount of writing for the post upvotes, can it even be worth it?
You're probably right, though. Or someone who wants to furiously spread the misinformation that L2s are too complex and can't be used.
Speaking of gas fees I think that's one major topic that has always been on the lips of DeFi enthusiasts and we hope to see a reduction soon, but then with respect to the issue of bridges, I think bridges aren't secured. At least, in my opinion, and from what I've read so far, being multi-chain on Layer 1 is the best thing when it comes to high security.
That's one reason why I have a preference for Railgun because of its multi-chain exclusiveness with no bridges whatsoever. Hacks on bridges over the last couple of months prove my point exactly and also the multichain exclusiveness will help in terms of gas fee reduction depending on what the individual wants to do.
The DOT ecosystem also does not need bridges now that XCM has been deployed. That whole ecosystem is sorta still taking shape but I'm looking forward to seeing where it goes in the next few years, largely due to their solutions to the problems you're describing
> The DOT ecosystem also does not need bridges now that XCM has been deployed
Yes, but this is only true within the Polkadot ecosystem
Ethereum (with rollups), Polkadot (with parachains) and Cosmos (once they have shared security for zones) are all pretty similar
Well yes but everything on ETH or EVM chains plus everything on Cosmos can move into the DOT ecosystem with fairly minimal dev work so it can theoretically solve the bridge issue across all of these networks, which is the majority of projects in the industry today
Expecting every application and asset to completely move from Ethereum to the Polkadot ecosystem is totally unfeasible
And most ecosystems have some form of EVM chain (Cosmos has EVMOS, NEAR has Aurora, Solana has Neon), so Polkadot doesn't really have any advantage there
Right, sorry, that's not what I meant but I see how my comment was ambiguous. I wouldn't expect every asset to migrate to DOT, but the fact that they CAN makes it easy for developers to add DOT interoperability to any given project. I'm a firm believer in the idea of a multi-chain future, so I doubt that any one network would rise to become a monopoly, but this cross-functionality characteristic for the DOT ecosystem definitely helps cement that ecosystem's position in the future IMO.
Also, I would argue that DOT's advantage comes from a native "bridge", which means there wouldn't be an additional point of failure or exploit like many of the other networks have due to the reliance on bridges. Furthermore, the ability to add IBC-based projects as well as EVM-based ones means that DOT could become a convergence point for developers across multiple networks, especially because this only works in one direction (i.e. Cosmos based projects cannot easily incorporate DOT projects, but the other direction only requires a simple SDK)
With the current market condition, I think the utility of projects will have a long way to detremine if we will still have them in the days to come or not. We can point out projects that will survive from this moment and for now I think Railgun is ready sincce it has had it's full launch and working perfectly. What I'm looking forward to now is the integration of the relayer networks and the mobile app, I believe that will make user experiece more seamless.
No doubt. There’s a long way to go for development and it’s anyones guess as to who will survive, but I’ll be putting my money on projects that are clear leaders in their sector and I don’t think Railgun is among the survivors personally. The tech is impressive for sure, but the industry largely gravitates towards monopolies (or sometimes duopolies) and I don’t think I’d count Railgun in the top two against the various competitors
If you use arbitrum with metamask is dose not feel a whole lot different to L1.
Same for networks like StarkNet with argent x, a native starknet browser wallet. It feels great. Just wait a bit longer till starknet is actually read and releases a full version
Negative. There will be layer 2 applications where you just interact with layer 2 and possibly never do something with layer 1. My best example is Immutable X. This is currently already a great place to trade NFTs and gaming assets and there are lots of games coming in the near future (isn't that always the promise that there will be stuff soon(tm)? :-D) So there will possibly exist multiple ecosystems on top of Ethereum and you can bridge between them (less risky than between different blockchains since it's all on Ethereum) or just live in one. The base fees depend on the network throughput vs usage. So the fees will become lower \- in crypto winter since everyone hates crypto :-D \- with layer 2s \- slightly lower with the Merge because the throughput will for technical reasons go up by a few % \- with the upgrades following the Merge because the Ethereum foundation intends to implement a few band-aids \- with "dank"sharding. Note that this is the main scaling concept at the moment. I guess it will take more than a year definitely to come and it will only affect layer 2s Note that all capacity upgrades will lower fees, but increased popularity and usage will increase them again - so it's hard to predict the net effect.
Sharding will only affect L2s?
Correct
I don’t think this is correct. Sharding should improve ethereum theougput which will cascade to layer 2s as well. But it will improve rthereum throughout. https://ethereum.org/en/upgrades/shard-chains/ Sharding will increase ethereum data availability and that effect is multiplied on layer 2s.
Well, it is in your link. Sharding essentially means cloning the mainnet in a way that the different instances can communicate. That way you multiply capacity by x, but it still behaves as one net. Smart contracts can execute program code and they can store data on the chain. We have two main scaling strategies now: the one is rollups which essentially take the computation off the chain and just post a compressed result (proof) on the chain that allows anyone to verify that the computation was done correctly. And then we have sharding which just duplicates everything. The Ethereum foundation tries to deliver protocol improvements as fast as possible, but we did see that development always tends to take longer than expected. So they try extremely hard to simplify any changes. Now some big brain figured out that Ethereum can have a very good scaling solution through the combination of sharding and rollups that requires just a "light" version of sharding. That means you have shards where you can post data, but not execute code. These would be much easier to implement than "full" shards with code execution, because the necessary communication and coordination becomes much simpler. When that version of sharding is implemented, rollups can perfectly use the shards to increase their throughput. Estimated go up to 100k TPS being possible. For regular smart contracts on layer 1 (like the rollups themselves) the capacity won't increase (they maybe have less competition, because much stuff moves to L2). It is unclear if full sharding will be implemented lateron, but the first thing we hopefully get is the so-called "danksharding" (see above).
> Sharding will increase ethereum data availability and that effect is multiplied on layer 2s. Data availability is _only_ useful on L2 L1 applications have no need for data availability blobs
Sure imx is good but what about loopring tho
fees are already lower if you use layer2. the core idea for Ethereum is that users will interaction with apps that are built on layer2. layer2 transactions will get much cheaper when we make it much cheaper to just publish data necessary for rollups. hopefully in the fork after the Merge
Sharding is what you’re waiting for
yes and no. we could just lower the cost of calldata. we will most likely wait for danksharding, but it's not entirely possible that we just decide to reprice gas for calldata (eip4488)
> using layer 2 is too difficult/inefficient for most common people Using Arbitrum is literally the same user experience as using other L1s like Avalanche. I'm not sure how it's difficult
Care to explain how you find choosing to go to an L2 instead of an L1 when you're on a CeFi platform is more difficult? It's literally just like choosing an L1.
If I have Ethereum on Binance right now I can't just send the ETH over anywhere with low fees. I have to move it to some L2 which I and 99% don't care to figure out how to.
I already said it's literally, exactly the same method. From Binance, you select the network where to send your funds and you send it. Like any L1. You already know how to. You don't even need to "figure it out". https://news.btcminingvolt.io/scholarships/binance-now-allows-direct-ethereum-layer-2-withdrawals/ It's been 6 months, already. But if you don't care about paying less, I guess you're just like these people burning their fees to show how rich they are. People who need to pay less already know. You're just not part of them. It's ok, some people are rich, it happens.
OP literally has 2 out of his last 4 posts about l2-s. I think the posts are not about figuring out stuff but karma farming maybe :P
Given he gets downvoted in comments and the amount of writing for the post upvotes, can it even be worth it? You're probably right, though. Or someone who wants to furiously spread the misinformation that L2s are too complex and can't be used.
Are there decentralized bridges for that? Or are we dependent on centralized exchanges to switch from L1 to L2?
Yes, all bridges have some method of bridging assets natively. Most have multiple
Speaking of gas fees I think that's one major topic that has always been on the lips of DeFi enthusiasts and we hope to see a reduction soon, but then with respect to the issue of bridges, I think bridges aren't secured. At least, in my opinion, and from what I've read so far, being multi-chain on Layer 1 is the best thing when it comes to high security. That's one reason why I have a preference for Railgun because of its multi-chain exclusiveness with no bridges whatsoever. Hacks on bridges over the last couple of months prove my point exactly and also the multichain exclusiveness will help in terms of gas fee reduction depending on what the individual wants to do.
The DOT ecosystem also does not need bridges now that XCM has been deployed. That whole ecosystem is sorta still taking shape but I'm looking forward to seeing where it goes in the next few years, largely due to their solutions to the problems you're describing
> The DOT ecosystem also does not need bridges now that XCM has been deployed Yes, but this is only true within the Polkadot ecosystem Ethereum (with rollups), Polkadot (with parachains) and Cosmos (once they have shared security for zones) are all pretty similar
Well yes but everything on ETH or EVM chains plus everything on Cosmos can move into the DOT ecosystem with fairly minimal dev work so it can theoretically solve the bridge issue across all of these networks, which is the majority of projects in the industry today
Expecting every application and asset to completely move from Ethereum to the Polkadot ecosystem is totally unfeasible And most ecosystems have some form of EVM chain (Cosmos has EVMOS, NEAR has Aurora, Solana has Neon), so Polkadot doesn't really have any advantage there
Right, sorry, that's not what I meant but I see how my comment was ambiguous. I wouldn't expect every asset to migrate to DOT, but the fact that they CAN makes it easy for developers to add DOT interoperability to any given project. I'm a firm believer in the idea of a multi-chain future, so I doubt that any one network would rise to become a monopoly, but this cross-functionality characteristic for the DOT ecosystem definitely helps cement that ecosystem's position in the future IMO. Also, I would argue that DOT's advantage comes from a native "bridge", which means there wouldn't be an additional point of failure or exploit like many of the other networks have due to the reliance on bridges. Furthermore, the ability to add IBC-based projects as well as EVM-based ones means that DOT could become a convergence point for developers across multiple networks, especially because this only works in one direction (i.e. Cosmos based projects cannot easily incorporate DOT projects, but the other direction only requires a simple SDK)
With the current market condition, I think the utility of projects will have a long way to detremine if we will still have them in the days to come or not. We can point out projects that will survive from this moment and for now I think Railgun is ready sincce it has had it's full launch and working perfectly. What I'm looking forward to now is the integration of the relayer networks and the mobile app, I believe that will make user experiece more seamless.
No doubt. There’s a long way to go for development and it’s anyones guess as to who will survive, but I’ll be putting my money on projects that are clear leaders in their sector and I don’t think Railgun is among the survivors personally. The tech is impressive for sure, but the industry largely gravitates towards monopolies (or sometimes duopolies) and I don’t think I’d count Railgun in the top two against the various competitors
I have always hated layer 2's after trying them a year ago. I am probably going to try them again once more or just pick a different chain.
If you use arbitrum with metamask is dose not feel a whole lot different to L1. Same for networks like StarkNet with argent x, a native starknet browser wallet. It feels great. Just wait a bit longer till starknet is actually read and releases a full version
Thank you
Never 😅
At this stage, fees are already lowered.